Fall Term (2008) Essay Assignment A Study Of: John Hick’s “The Problem of Evil” and Arthur C. Clarke’s “The Star” Audrey Scott 4272258 PHIL1F91 Andrew T. Seminar 10 The Problem of Evil as outlined as John Hick is that “if God is perfectly loving, he must wish to abolish evil; and if he is all-powerful, he must be able to abolish evil. But evil exists; therefore God cannot be both omnipotent and perfectly loving” (Hick, 1963). In this essay the topic of John Hick’s solutions to “The Problem of Evil” will be looked at. Another subject matter that will be briefly deliberated on in this essay is if and how both of Hicks’ solutions are applicable to Arthur C. Clarke’s “The Star”. The difference between “moral evil” and “natural evil” lies classified in the fact that “moral evil” is essentially wickedness; that God is indirectly responsible for this type of evil because he created human beings and human beings inflict this kind of evil, or malevolent acts on each other on a regular basis. “Moral evil” can also be when one inflicts an action with negative connotations on one’s self. Divergent from “moral evil”, “natural evil” is in reference to natural disasters or occurrences that create suffering which people are victims of, this is a type of evil to which God is directly responsible for, because he controls such physical environmental forces. In his essay, John Hick solves the problem of both “moral evil” by firstly posing a question to the reader of why an all-good and all-powerful God would permit such a thing as degradation of one’s personal character through human interaction to occur, because as his creation, human beings are made in his image and should be as affectionately kind towards one another as God would be if he were a human being dwelling on Earth. Hick communicates that the solution to this first pending question would be that God has created humans with an intrinsic intellect to use their own free will. Free will allows a person to decide their possessive, individual right to make the choice between making a decision that has either evil or good motives behind it. This also gives the inward alternatives of choosing to follow God’s morals, ethics and principles, pointedly the Bible, or to act upon evil urges. Basically, God has given human beings the decision to either choose to live a life of evil and Earthly fulfillment only, and have no hope or understanding of an afterlife, or to follow his written word; the Bible. In this instance one can understand the need for an individual’s afflictions, indirectly conducted by God, through face-to-face relations put into effect by other human beings, for the reason that a world without this type of suffering “would be very ill adapted for the development of the moral qualities of human personality” (Hick, 1963). These hardships are placed strategically in one’s life’s path in order to allow for the private maturity of one’s personality. John Hick also questioned why this same omnipotent and perfectly loving God can allow “natural evil” in the form of earthly catastrophes to transpire. His solution to this new enquiring predicament is that these natural hardships are a “soul-making” process used to breed a higher appreciation for the fact that the world that God provided human beings with can be used for the gain of the right to become “children of God” and “heirs of external life” (Hick, 1963) by overcoming such hardships. Due to the fact that “natural evil” is unexplainable and it’s not plausible for its blame to be placed on an individual, one must chalk it up to God’s all-powerful ways directly interacting with Earth’s ecological balance. Fitting to this solution, this means that there is no physical entity on Earth which can be blamed for the displeasure found as a result of the occurrence of “natural evil”. This means that one must simply accept their disagreeable circumstances and become a stronger person for having surmounted over them in order to be worthy enough for acceptance into the afterlife, in accordance with Christian beliefs. The unique problem of Arthur C. Clarke’s story, “The Star” can be solved by use of both of John Hick’s solutions to “The Problem of Evil”. The unique problem being the author’s confusion over the same dilemma that Hick is faced with in “The Problem of Evil”; how can an all-loving and all-powerful God allow such severe destruction as the obliteration of an entire planet in conjunction with a complete race to go alongside? Foremost through the “moral evil” that must have had to emerge in the growth and advancement of the civilization and the latter quandary of God’s showing of “natural evil”. First off the author is faced with the conundrum that an omnipotent and perfectly loving God can allow “moral evil” in the newly discovered ruined planet, with its human-like race, that was destroyed by the explosion of its sun. Without the “moral evil” the developments that seem to have created impressive technological advancements in this society would never have been accomplished. This civilization, as similar to Earth’s, had the option of its own free will and therefore the planet’s occupants could have chosen a path of evil activities or a heaven-bound conducted lifestyle. I believe they achieved a path towards a God-guided afterlife by the complex and intricately ingenious clues they left in the creation of their prized treasure-hold, the Vault. The Vault held the fruits of the empire’s labour over many centuries as well as equipment and cultural progression (Clarke, 1955). Through the discovery of the objects inside the Vault the explorers in “The Star” determined that the people of the planet must have had to rise above “moral evil” in order to thrive the way they seemingly appeared to, in order to make the immeasurable innovations that they did. Secondly, John Hick outlines the route of “soul-making” through the overcoming of “natural evils” which ties in with “The Star” because technically, the shattering of the planet would be the natural disaster that the inhabitants had to conquer. Here the author describes the astronomical mass “...to be destroyed so completely in the full flower of its achievement, leaving no survivors-how could that be reconciled with the mercy of God?” (Clarke 1955). The inhabitants of the planet overcame this natural disaster, not by surviving it, but by enclosing a nearly indestructible tribute to its technological advancements as a species. This is proven in the existence of the Vault which is described in the following quotation as: “...this lonely monument, reared at such a labour at the greatest possible distance from the doomed sun, could have only one meaning. A civilization which knew it was about to die had made its last bid for immortality” (Clarke, 1955). In a way, when the civilization died off and left the Vault, it was if they were embracing their fate and by proving that the race has become a stronger, more enhanced, and healthier entity for having triumphed over their fortune in order to be worthy enough for acceptance into the afterlife. Therefore, “The Problem of Evil” as given the framework by John Hick is that if we are created by an affectionate and devoted God, he must not want to cause us displeasure or unpleasantness, however, evil causes these harmful feelings in human beings. Being an almighty God, he does have the supremacy to fix this conflict, but chooses not to. Consequently this should mean that “God cannot be both omnipotent and perfectly loving” (Hick, 1963). The solutions that Hick gives to solve the problem of “moral evil” would be that God is indirectly responsible for the pain that humans cause each other because he created humans with an innate sense of free will and the right to choose between living an honourable life in the eye’s of God or a lifestyle filled with evil doings. Secondly, Hick’s solution to the dilemma of “natural evil” is that suffering by God’s direct hand are part of a “soul-making” process used to mould one’s soul into an acceptable interpretation of what God wants for a human to accomplish in order to gain passage to a type of afterlife. References Clarke, Arthur C. (1955). The star. Infinity science fiction. 59-63. Hick, J. Philosophy of religion. (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1963).